So in other words, you think democracy sucks. Am I reading the sentiment correctly?

I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is if you have a proportional system where a large state like California can only net a winning Candidate 60 delegates out of a possible 405, then you should not allow 800 super delegates (who are not decided in primaries) to influence the outcome of the nomination.

While I think the superdelegate portion of things is stupid (because I'm one of those "liberals" who thinks the actual elections should matter more than the whims of party officials), it's less of a factor than you're portraying it.

There are 4,049 total delegates, so the 796 is about 19% of the total. Many of the delegates will vote along with the caucus or primary result in their states. THey aren't required to do so certainly, but they're not going to act as free agents, and it's not as though they're all going to break for a single candidate en masse.

I'm still at a loss as to why you think the republican system is demonstrably better - for the republicans or for republican voters. Because they allow open primaries or caucuses in many of the states that've voted, McCain's the nominee even though actual republicans aren't voting for him. Instead, it's independent or uncommitted voters who've pushed him into the spot. Consequently, the party's in disarray as the various luminaries offer tepid support for a guy they think betrays their core principles. Romney polled better than McCain by a wide margin among "conservative" voters, but most of them don't get to elect their nominee - New Hampshire does. I will never, in my life, vote for a republican for president*, but I think republican voters should have the opportunity to put up a nominee that actually reflects their party's principles.

*I have voted for republicans before. Current WA secretary of state Sam Reed, for example.

I will never, in my life, vote for a republican for president*, but I think republican voters should have the opportunity to put up a nominee that actually reflects their party's principles.

I have voted for : Reagan, Clinton (twice), Gore, GWB, and I plan to vote for Obama this year. I tend to vote more on what I feel about the individual than his party. I have a feeling that despite what Obama is saying we will be still be in Iraq at the end of his 4 year term. Getting out will be much more complex and difficult than he thinks.

Again it's the proportional system in combination with 19% of the delegates not being decided by primaries that I have an issue with. I have a nasty feeling that my candidate (Obama) is going to get shafted since a large proportion of the super delegates have already commited to Hillary.

I don't think the winner take all system is necessarily better. But I do think it gives an advantge to the Republicans in the general election by allowing them to settle on a nominee quicker. 19% of the electors coming from super delegates is huge in my view. I have a feeling that if the Republican convention were to be decided by super delegates there would be people on this forum who would accuse the party of "fixing" it's nomination process through back room super delegate dealings. But when the democrats do it. That's "democracy."

***Again*** it's the proportional system in combination with the super delegates that I have an issue with. When your system is designed to keep the contest close, it gives the super delegates more power.

Edit - I did the math and under a winner take all system Obama's lead would be 99 delegates when the super delegates are factored out. Roughly the same as it is now. So maybe I'm full of sh*t.

But under a winner take all system if one candidate were to win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania they could still get to 2025. With proportional wins that isn't nearly as likely.

Wow... the media and pundits sure lower the bar on what constitutes "taking the gloves off" when Hillary does something.

If they call her statements "attacks"... holy cow. I'll bet they must have went into a coma when the Republicans were saying McCain had a black child, or Romney wasn't really a Christian, or Kerry was a war criminal.

"Only the limits of human creativity could restrict the ways in which Obama and Clinton will try to be helpful to superdelegates," said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. "My guess is that if the nomination actually depends on superdelegates, the unwritten rule may be, 'ask and ye shall receive.' "

Quote

...the Center for Responsive Politics has found that campaign contributions have been a generally reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take. In cases where superdelegates had received contributions from both Clinton and Obama, all seven elected officials who received more money from Clinton have committed to her. Thirty-four of the 43 superdelegates who received more money from Obama, or 79 percent, are backing him. In every case the Center found in which superdelegates received money from one candidate but not the other, the superdelegate is backing the candidate who gave them money. Four superdelegates who have already pledged received the same amount of contributions from both Clinton and Obama—and all committed to Clinton.

Quote

Though it might seem undemocratic to allow elected officials who have received money from the candidates to have such power in picking their party's nominee, the process was not meant to be democratic, Arizona State's Herrera said. "If anything, it was meant to take it out of the democratic process. In 1982 [the party] said they needed to have some professionals making decisions here to blunt the potential effects of what they perceived as amateur delegates making decisions—those who vote with their heart and not their head."

Couple more wins by Obama today (well I assume he won in Hawaii anyways). Obama is a machine! If he keeps winning this way then Ohio and Texas won't matter because she would have to blow him out of the water in both states just to even up. I don't think that's going to happen. She might win by 10% but that's all.

The Democratic establishment has already lined up behind Obama. And when we talk about superdelegates, that's the same people.

As far as this "plagiarism" stupidity, I think that reveals Hillary would probably not have any place in an Obama administration, and she knows it. I think at the least it shows a lack of class, especially since the claim is so fricken stupid.

Now one rumor has also been that the Obama camp has met with John Edwards. If they select Edwards as VP, I'll become the biggest Obama fanboy. It would essentially wipe out my biggest misgiving about Obama, which is my doubt that he actually means what he says. I've also found his policies to be the weakest of the three candidates, and Edwards to have had the best.

And finally, I think if Hillary bargains her way into a win, it's not going to bode well for her, or for the Democratic party in general. It's going to look shady, and for some good reasons. Even though in many ways I find her personally a better candidate, her campaign just doesn't seem to have any steam, while Obama's has a great deal of momentum. If she did manage to win, I think she might be forced by political necessity to chose Obama as VP.

Edwards is a smooth talking do nothing stiff who wouldn't even deliver his home state if Obama needed it. I hope he is not the VP.

Hillary kind of reminds me of the mother trying to tell her daughter that her new dreamboat is bad for her even though he seems perfect. She has tried crying, yelling, and now petty accusations. Nothing has worked.

The essential problem is there is so little real policy difference between Hillary and Obama that all she can really rely on is her "experience." Unfortunately right now most democrats don't really care about experience. They care about a fresh perspective. Here in Ohio Hillary seems to be trying to paint Obama as being too liberal. Even though on most issues the two candidates are pretty much the same. I only hope Hillary's campaign does the right thing and bows out after Ohio and Texas. If they push the super delagate and Mich/Fla issues it could be a disaster at the convention.

Edwards is a smooth talking do nothing stiff who wouldn't even deliver his home state if Obama needed it. I hope he is not the VP.

Quote

Hillary kind of reminds me of the mother trying to tell her daughter that her new dreamboat is bad for her even though he seems perfect. She has tried crying, yelling, and now petty accusations. Nothing has worked.

I don't see anything which makes it look like malice, although that's the preferred right wing narrative. The more I read, it seems like she's just been taking a lot of really bad advice (reportedly, some of her advisors have been pushing, for a long time, to go REALLY negative). Not only that, but her campaign has made several pretty big mistakes. Like not running enough delegates in some states: pretty basic stuff. Some people have also said she has too many coordinators and not enough feet on the ground, which is another issue.

But yeah... I just don't see her as this James Bond villain the far right has been making her out to be for over 15 years. What I really think the far right's problem with not just Hillary, but the Clintons in general, has been is that their politics and views tend to be pretty conservative, by which I mean REAL conservative, rather than the phony Republican form of conservative.

When has a "fiscal conservative" ever had a balanced budget? Clinton had two, and came pretty damn close in other years. And the claim that "Clinton shifted his politics and stole the Republican's platform" wasn't really true, so much as Clinton was walking the walk while Republicans have only been about talking the talk.

I think the biggest fear of Republicans, which has definitely been behind their terror at the Clintons, is that if conservatives actually looked at the reality of the situation, Clinton would take away a huge bulk of their supporters. If conservatives became Democrats, they could embrace good government rather than smaller government, since doing things correctly will always be less costly then the half-assed squandering Republicans accomplish. And likewise, Democrats will balance the budget and pay down the national debt. Do you know how much money would be freed up to actually USE in America if we weren't paying that huge interest on the national debt? It's a monstrous chunk of the government's total expenses.

Quote

The essential problem is there is so little real policy difference between Hillary and Obama that all she can really rely on is her "experience." Unfortunately right now most democrats don't really care about experience. They care about a fresh perspective. Here in Ohio Hillary seems to be trying to paint Obama as being too liberal. Even though on most issues the two candidates are pretty much the same. I only hope Hillary's campaign does the right thing and bows out after Ohio and Texas. If they push the super delagate and Mich/Fla issues it could be a disaster at the convention.

There is quite a bit of policy difference between Obama and Hillary, which is actually why I've been down on Obama so much. His stated policies are far different from what he says at speeches. With health care, for example, Obama's plan doesn't give health care to everyone. I'll try to find the article about the numbers, I think it was a Krugman piece, but Obama's plan would cost $124 $102 billion, and only cover half of Americans, while Hillary's plan would cost $145 $124 billion, and cover everyone. So obviously, spending a little bit more to cover everyone is a far wiser use of the money.

Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured  essentially everyone  at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.

I don't see anything which makes it look like malice, although that's the preferred right wing narrative. The more I read, it seems like she's just been taking a lot of really bad advice (reportedly, some of her advisors have been pushing, for a long time, to go REALLY negative). Not only that, but her campaign has made several pretty big mistakes. Like not running enough delegates in some states: pretty basic stuff. Some people have also said she has too many coordinators and not enough feet on the ground, which is another issue.

But yeah... I just don't see her as this James Bond villain the far right has been making her out to be for over 15 years. What I really think the far right's problem with not just Hillary, but the Clintons in general, has been is that their politics and views tend to be pretty conservative, by which I mean REAL conservative, rather than the phony Republican form of conservative.

When has a "fiscal conservative" ever had a balanced budget? Clinton had two, and came pretty damn close in other years. And the claim that "Clinton shifted his politics and stole the Republican's platform" wasn't really true, so much as Clinton was walking the walk while Republicans have only been about talking the talk.

I think the biggest fear of Republicans, which has definitely been behind their terror at the Clintons, is that if conservatives actually looked at the reality of the situation, Clinton would take away a huge bulk of their supporters. If conservatives became Democrats, they could embrace good government rather than smaller government, since doing things correctly will always be less costly then the half-assed squandering Republicans accomplish. And likewise, Democrats will balance the budget and pay down the national debt. Do you know how much money would be freed up to actually USE in America if we weren't paying that huge interest on the national debt? It's a monstrous chunk of the government's total expenses.

Why do you keep bringing up the far right? We are talking about democratic primary voters here. The far right is irrelevant in this race.

Quote from: unbreakable on February 20, 2008, 03:41:05 PM

But if anyone thinks there are no difference between the candidates, they obviously haven't done any kind of research. Listening to what Fox, Limbaugh, etc. say doesn't count as research.

Other than health care (which I personally don't care about unless I have to pay for it even though I won't need it.) What other major differences are there between them. And if there are differences, why aren't the Clintons talking about them instead of calling Obama a liberal and accusing him of plagiary?

Quote from: unbreakable on February 20, 2008, 03:41:05 PM

But if anyone thinks there are no difference between the candidates, they obviously haven't done any kind of research. Listening to what Fox, Limbaugh, etc. say doesn't count as research.

Again. WTF are you talking about? How many democratic primary voters watch Fox and listen to Rush Limbaugh?

Why do you keep bringing up the far right? We are talking about democratic primary voters here. The far right is irrelevant in this race.

Because they are driving the media narrative. It's why, according to the news reporting, the Clintons can do no right, and St. John "does this sweater make me look gay?" McCain can do no wrong.

McCain has held every political position under the sun, but when he flipflops, he's just branded "ZOMG TEH MAVERICK!!11!!11" And yet, he is and always will be given a free pass for that.

Quote

Other than health care (which I personally don't care about unless I have to pay for it even though I won't need it.) What other major differences are there between them. And if there are differences, why aren't the Clintons talking about them instead of calling Obama a liberal and accusing him of plagiary?

She is, and has been. All of them have been talking just about every day about their policies, and yet all we hear about is hair cuts, conspiracy theories, blatant misogyny, and Bill Clinton's penis.

The policies of the candidates don't fit the media narrative, so they never get discussed. The media is neocon flavored, so of course they don't want people discussing how the neocon agenda is a complete and utter failure, and how Democrats are going to set the government back on the right track. The narrative is supposed to be how anything the government does is evil and wasteful, not how the government serves important functions in our society. NeoCons want to eliminate the USDA, not see it back to being fully staffed and funded and protecting America's food supply.

Quote

Quote from: unbreakable on February 20, 2008, 03:41:05 PM

But if anyone thinks there are no difference between the candidates, they obviously haven't done any kind of research. Listening to what Fox, Limbaugh, etc. say doesn't count as research.

Again. WTF are you talking about? How many democratic primary voters watch Fox and listen to Rush Limbaugh?

Are you suggesting that the REPUPLICANZ would rather face Obama than Hillary?

Yes, because they would rather see a liberal in office than have a conservative Democrat steal their platform again. They still dream of getting back into power, and they are going to have to keep their braindead 24%ers at all costs. If they lose those people... it's game over, man.

Quote

I would think FOX NEWZ would love to see Hillary knock out Obama.

No?

No. Because as I said, the NeoCons can't have a conservative Democrat walking the walk. Republicans are all about talking the talk, but not producing any results whatsoever. Just look at the past seven years: the Republicans could have done ANYTHING they wanted, they had a majority in all three branches of the Federal government. And what did they accomplish? Not a damn thing, except for epic corruption, fraud, and the breakdown of rule of law.

And we still don't know how many Americans they've locked up in their secret prisons, because nobody's bothered to even ask the question. But we do know that both John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla were tortured. And they are both native born US citizens.

We also know for a fact that the Republicans view the Fourth Amendment as passe. Their illegal spying on domestic communications began BEFORE Sept. 11th, which once again proves how their 9/11 Tourette's is complete bullshit.

That's what the Republican NeoConservatives establishment has to offer.

So yeah, the Republicans definitely need to keep the Clintons out of power, and vilify them at all costs.

On a somewhat related note, this is also why the Republicans will NEVER, EVER let Condi run for a serious public office. Or Colon Powell, for that matter. They are just there to be window dressing appointments. If they allow them to run for office and they LOSE, which is more likely than not, it will destroy the entire Republican narrative that black people only vote on the basis of race. Having a black Republican run and then lose destroys that meme... so they need to make sure that situation never, ever, ever happens. And if that requires destroying that person's political future, as they did with Colon, then so be it.

Umm.....Yeah.....After that orgasm of anti-Republican bile.....(Feel better now Unbreakable? )

So don't ask a question if you don't want an answer. If you think it sounds bad, perhaps it's because the truth is their worst enemy. That's not my fault.

There are two different forces at work: there are what the voters think being a conservative means... and there is what conservative leaders think it means. Now obviously, as the overwhelming Democratic victory in 2006 showed, enough Americans realized that what they had voted for and what they got were two very different things... and they wanted to vote the real bastards out.

I think most Americans are good people, and what the same essential things. So the real trick is taking power away from the institutional assholes (and the moneyed interests who own them), and giving it back to the people. Most people want out of Iraq, most people don't support the embargo of Cuba, most people want national health care, most people want the government to help people after natural disasters, most people want the government to protect America from unsafe food and products, etc.